I see a great deal of attraction in the phrase ““public benefit”” in that it is understood; I find it immediately understandable. It seems to me to cover almost every circumstance where this rule should apply. I have severe objections to subsection (2) in Amendment No. 13, which is an entirely inappropriate list. Beyond anything else, it does not cover trees. Indeed, there was a celebrated case last year where a council was determined to cut down a conker tree because the kids were in the habit of climbing it to get conkers. That is exactly the sort of thing that we ought to deal with. A tree in a park is provided for the public benefit; that is sufficient to come in under this. I really do not think that we need this list; if we need a list it can be by way of illustration. I do not see the purpose of subsection (3) of Amendment No. 13, which rules in or rules out various categories of offender in a way that is unnecessary. Subsection (1) of Amendment No. 13 is wonderful, and I would very much like to understand the reasons why that was not the phrase chosen.
Compensation Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Lucas
(Conservative)
in the House of Lords on Thursday, 15 December 2005.
It occurred during Debate on bills
and
Committee proceeding on Compensation Bill [HL].
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
676 c206GC 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords Grand Committee
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-22 01:57:01 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_287422
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_287422
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_287422